High Court makes it easier to sue for age discrimination
August 6, 2008 by Sam NarisiPosted in: Age Discrimination, In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views
The Supreme Court recently ruled on an age discrimination case, changing the way courts handle those claims. Here’s what the new standards mean for you.
The suit was filed after the company laid off 31 employees — 30 of whom were over the age of 40. The company argued that age played no part in the decision. The case was initially thrown out when the plaintiffs failed to prove the layoffs were age-related.
But the Supreme Court overturned that decision, saying the company had the burden to show the “disparate impact” was based on “reasonable factors other than age.” Previously, courts in similar cases ruled it was up to employees to prove there was bias.
The case now goes back to the circuit court to decide if the company met that burden.
What’s it mean for employers? Some experts say the decision will lead to more age discrimination suits, especially as more companies reduce their workforces due to a sluggish economy.
It’s a good reminder that when companies do have to lay people off, they need strong documentation of the decision-making criteria so they can prove age and other protected categories didn’t play a role.
Cite: Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory
Tags: ADEA, Age Discrimination, Age Discrimination in Employment Act, burden of proof, layoffs, reduction-in-force, RIF, Supreme Court
August 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Seems to me the bottom line is that anyone can sue you for any reason and even if your logic is correct and you are not discriminating in any way whatsoever, you need to be prepared to prove your good intentions and lack of discrimination. At will employment really doesn’t exist any more.
I’ve been in a situation where we had to reduce the workforce by a significant number of people (20% of workforce). The management team decided to rank employees in relation to several areas we felt were critical if we were going to be able to continue to perform and care for our customers. We looked at things like flexibility, willingness to take on additional tasks, cooperation with others and things of this nature, as well as overall job performance. There were several people on the potential layoff list who were over 40. We wound up laying off 3 individuals who were in that age group and they joined together and filed suit alleging age discrimination. In truth, one of the employees was uncooperative, combative, refused to help anyone with anything that wasn’t part of her job and thought most things were beneath her. Another was dictating, inflexible, rude, arrogant and refused to cooperate with others. Performance issues should have been handled prior to the layoff, but their managers sugar-coated these issues in their reviews and did everything they could to avoid conflict, thus creating a nightmare for those of us who came after and had to deal with the problem. The 3rd person was a pretty good employee, but she didn’t have the depth of experience or knowledge that her co-workers had. She also had a very negative attitude. But in all 3 cases, the people who were retained were all also over 40…some were older than the people who were laid off…with the exception of one individual who was in her mid-30’s. So it should have been obvious that age was not a factor in the layoff.
The lesson to me was simply this: deal with performance issues immediately. Don’t wait until you have to make a choice between retaining or laying off one employee over another. I think this is what happens a lot of the time during a reduction and it comes back to bite you. That would be my advice…and hopefully that will help someone else down the road.